Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!seismo!harpo!eagle!mhuxl!houxm!ihnp4!astrovax!mwe
From: mwe@astrovax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: Re: ABM WEAPONS
Message-ID: <140@astrovax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 22-Nov-83 15:05:11 EST
Article-I.D.: astrovax.140
Posted: Tue Nov 22 15:05:11 1983
Date-Received: Fri, 25-Nov-83 04:23:22 EST
References: <13399@sri-arpa.UUCP>, <148@dual.UUCP>, <1108@pur-phy.UUCP> <3336@utzoo.UUCP>, <3925@umcp-cs.UUCP>, <1085@ucf-cs.UU
Lines: 23

Relay-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mhuxl.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site astrovax.UUCP
Message-ID: <140@astrovax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 22-Nov-83 15:05:11 EST

CP>
Organization: Princeton Univ. Astrophysics
Lines: 14

I must strongly disagree with one point in Bruce Giles article.
An ABM system capable of taking out moderate strikes is exactly what
we don't need. Of course, any defensive system is destabalizing to the
current balance of terror, but from the Russian point of view, what use
could a defense against moderate strikes be put to? Why, only to shoot
down a second strike of course, and they would be very nervous (probably
to the point of being forced to the infamous "launch on warning"). 
How would you feel if you found out that the Soviets were deploying a 
defense that wasn't capable of stopping an all out strike by the US,
but could shoot down about the number of missiles we would have left after
a first strike by them?
-- 
Web Ewell	Princeton Univ. Astrophysics
{allegra,akgua,burl,cbosgd,decvax,ihnp4,kpno,princeton}!astrovax!mwe